Skip to main content

About your Search

English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting director morell told them the fbi did. they say they later heard from the cia that he had quote, misspoken and the cia was, in fact, responsible. so what's going on here? cnn intelligence correspondent suzanne kelly has been working her sources. she's joining us now. suzanne, you just got a statement from the cia. what are they saying? >> reporter: actually, i've gotten this statement from an intelligence official who told me it was in fact the cia that made the changes which is more or less what the intelligence community has been saying from the beginning, that this was a collaborative effort within the intelligence community to get their language straight and that the reasons they were doing it had to do with, as you know, classified sources. i can read you what the u.s. intelligence official has just told me. there were literally just coming in on my phone. there were several valid intelligence and investigatory reasons
from the director of central intelligence agency, that references of al qaeda were taken out for security reasons not for political reasons. do you accept the explanation by ambassador rice? >> i don't believe that the best intelligence assessment on 16, september was that there was a spontaneous event in benghazi based on a video that led to a mob that became a riot. the cia station chief on the day of the attack reported in realtime we're under attack by al qaeda affiliates. the president in libya said on the day of atack -- excuse me on 16, september, al qaeda was involved. we've got drones. released the video. we know what a mob looks like in the mideast. i am increasingly convinced the fbi interviewed the survivors in ramstein, germany, the day after and convinced that the best and current intelligence assessment on 16, september went against the video. the video was a political smoke screen. the actual facts were this was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack. when the president said on "letterman" we think the video caused this. when he said at the u.n. we won't le
to the salafists and al qaeda, yeah. they are a muslim brotherhood government which is why morsi had the leverage to negotiate the cease-fire. >> mika, a lot of interesting things, talking about foreign policy going on here at home, talking about who the next secretary of state may be, john mccain said, along with lindsey graham and several others, who said they were going to fight susan rice tooth and nail, that sort of changed over the weekend, didn't it? >> that appears to be changing just a tad bit. heilmann, you wrote about it. senator mccain is softening his attacks on u.n. ambassador susan rice after vowing to block her potential nomination as secretary of state. republicans claim ambassador rice deliberately misled the country in the aftermath of the september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. but rice says that she's not to blame, arguing she relied on the talking points from the intelligence community. although mccain had threatened a senate filibuster earlier this month, he's now open to meeting directly with miss rice. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to c
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> certainly she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> now, soledad, ambassador rice is not without her supporters. democrats on the hill say rice's republican critics are still the ones politicizing the benghazi atta
stability and prevent al-qaeda's return after nato leaves. he is preparing for confirmation for the next hearing when he was swept in the petraeus e-mail scandal. the inspector general is investigating. >> jennifer griffin, thank you. still ahead, director of national intelligence changes his story. first, we go to point pleasant beach, new jersey, four weeks after hurricane sandy. victor! victor! i got your campbell's chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. the giants don't have a mascot! ohhh! eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. hmmm. for giant hunger! thanks mom! see ya! whoaa...oops! mom? i'm ok. grandma? hi sweetie! she operates the head. [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. a hybrid? most are just no fun to drive. she operates the head. now, here's one that will make you feel alive. meet the five-passenger ford c-max hybrid. c-max says ha. c-max says wheeee. which is what you get, don't you see? cause c-max has lots more horsepower than prius v, a hybrid that c-max also bests in mpg. say hi t
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
explained she was using these unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack. and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn has also told rice tried to clarify to gop senators that what she meant was al qaeda's core leadership had been decimated. but gop senators argue rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: rice did not answer our questions. she did release a statement admitting her talking points "were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. while we certainly wish we had perfect information jus
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given was wrong. ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. said't understand the cia clearly that information was wrong and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong yet they have not clear that up with the american people to date including they said this was the reaction to to the video, the attacks. what troubled me also is obviously, the changes made to the unqualified talking points were misleading. just to be clear, when you have a position where you are ambassador to the you knighted nations, you go well beyond -- unitedador to the nations, you go well beyond talking points. in addition to, it is not just the talking collins, but clearly it is her responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to do much more than that. >> before anyone can make an intelligent and decision, we need to do a lot more. to this date, we do not have the fbi interviews of the survivors from after the attack. we do not have the basic information about what was said about the night of
groups in libya. we did nothing to help them. as a result of that the al qaeda and those affiliated groups have undue influence and the benghazi debacle is a result of that. bill: can we do anything about that when you consider the politics operating internally within these countries? >> in my own mind there is plenty we can do. right now engage in libya and let's get a security force and let's start gaining some control in that country and pushing back on the radicals. let's choose a side on the war taking place in syria and start helping the moderate rebels. even the united kingdom is looking towards doing something like that. why sit on the fence and turn it over to the rad cat islamists and the al qaeda which may be the case. bill: there is a power vacuum in the world. that's clear to see. jack keane, i appreciate your analysis. martha: coming up, a lurid tale of money and murder as a woman goes on trial accused of defriending a jackpot -- befriending a jackpot winner. she conned him out of the money and then she killed them. the drama that's unfolding in court. >> i'm telling y
amended it to say or it could have been about the movie. >> they certainly didn't want to say al-qaeda, hamas or hezbollah. they didn't want to blame someone early. here is the white house defending their position, the spokesperson president press briefing. >> there are no unanswered questions about ambassador rice's appearance on sundays shows and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community. those questions have been answered. >> cenk: yeah, look, again i'm not putting it on susan rice. someone changed the talking points. john mccain is on with her on that same face the nation says no way it's a terrorist attack, it was coordinated. >> they had the talking points and went against them. you're with the three amigos, you're the fourth amigo. >> cenk: let's go on to something different. touree. >> old white establishment folks wrongly and repeatedly attacking a much younger black woman moments after an election in which blacks and women strongly went blue. >> cenk: do you think this has anything to do with rice' gender or race?
for defense of democracy reveals u.s. interests in egypt, yes, ma'amen and tunisia were targeted by al-qaeda, in addition to their raid on the consulate in benefiting and the memo reads, quote, while much of the public debate has focused on the attack in benghazi alone, they deserve closer scrutiny. they are related to the al-qaeda network. ambassador rice is still recorded adds the front run torre place hillary clinton, although democratic senator dick durbin said yesterday he's not sure she could get the 60 votes needed for senate confirmation and he would try to get the votes together, but it's up to the president to nominate her first. >> steve: peter, thank you very much. her offensive yesterday was when the going gets tough, you got critics, go talk to them face-to-face. instead of making it better, she actually made it worse. then she brought along the acting director of the c.i.a. and he completely botched it. they were asked okay, so who changed the talking points? the c.i.a. guy said yep, i did. well, they called about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and the c.i.a. told capitol hill,
references to al qaeda and terrorism before ambassador rice went on all five sunday shows. he also says he knew at the time extremists were involved. the bottom line was this just wasn't ready for public consumption. there was a lot of covert stuff going on on the ground. senators now want him to explain the decision. senator mccain now says he he is willing to give ambassador rice a change -- chance to explain herself. a note of importance she worked hard against him in his run for the white house in 2008. many democrats believe part of his opposition to her nomination dates to that. the egyptian president who helped broker the cease-fire between israel and hamas today defended his controversial power grab. the egyptian president mohammed morsi stood by his decision to essentially give himself complete control over egypt. he says it's only temporary. you may recall last week he issued several decrees. including an order that all decisions he makes are final. and one that states no legislature and no court can overturny law that he makes. if that sounds like a dictatorship to you, it does
are we surprised they'd tweak the points. and director of intelligence, whether the line on al qaeda as a threat and all of those things, segue back to this book, all of that's in here, not to scare the american people, but to bring them up to speed on what's happening in crowds like the so-called fast and serious operation to go on and coverup with executive privilege. this is a scary administration. >> can you give me 20 seconds on what qualifies as an assault weapon, which this administration would like to ban? because a lot of people they're confused and so am i, frankly, i don't know wh an assault weapon is. >> they're going to look at a weapon with api pistol grip, an more and a few rounds and a flash suppresser. even though it's like my .22 or the automatic shotgun i'm giving to one of my grandsons at christmas. i'm one of the folks who applied for one of the permits to buy a gun. what we don't want to have is a requirement to register those firearms and that's what has the got people buying so many of ttem. stuart: that's an important thing, they're require to register, is th
of the rewriting of those talking points was done by the fbi to take out al qaeda references, not by the zewe we had been told by the director of national intelligence came from the intelligence committee. it's worse than when she went up. she'll see bob corker, known to be bipartisan from tennessee and i don't think it'll be quite as vitriolic as yesterday. she felt she wanted to clear her name and she had been maligned and just been on morning television. that the real issue as jay carney was trying to say what happened before, what happened during but not what happened on sunday morning television programs and there is an investigation that hillary clinton has commissioned. it is a legally mandated investigation being led by none other than the former chairman, joint chief, mike ullin and co-chaired from mike pickering and deputy secretary of state. it's going to be coming out in mid-december and reported to congress and i understand it's going to be very tough on the state department for not ramping up security which many people believe could be the real issue here, not what was said on sund
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)